| Literature DB >> 33342032 |
Norine Khedim1,2, Lauric Cécillon3,4, Jérôme Poulenard1, Pierre Barré4, François Baudin5, Silvio Marta6, Antoine Rabatel7, Cédric Dentant8, Sophie Cauvy-Fraunié9, Fabien Anthelme10, Ludovic Gielly2, Roberto Ambrosini6, Andrea Franzetti11, Roberto Sergio Azzoni6, Marco Stefano Caccianiga12, Chiara Compostella13, John Clague14, Levan Tielidze15,16, Erwan Messager1, Philippe Choler2, Gentile Francesco Ficetola2,6.
Abstract
Since the last glacial maximum, soil formation related to ice-cover shrinkage has been one major sink ofEntities:
Keywords: carbon stability; chronosequence; climate sensitivity; soil organic matter; topsoil development
Year: 2021 PMID: 33342032 PMCID: PMC8048894 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Chang Biol ISSN: 1354-1013 Impact factor: 10.863
FIGURE 1Locations of the 10 glacier forelands of this study. Background map is modified from Randolph Glacier Inventory under an Attribution 4.0 International license (RGI Consortium, 2017)
Glacier forelands sampled and bibliographic sources used to date moraines
| Name | Mountain region | Country | Lat. (°E) | Long. (°N) | Elevation of glacier front (m a.s.l.) | Elevation of oldest sample site (m a.s.l.) | Lithology | Studied time period since deglacierization (years) and number of study sites | Data sources for soil chronology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apusinikajik | Renland | Greenland | 71.26 | −25.82 | 75 | 55 | Granite and gneiss | 10–150; | Medford ( |
| Perito Moreno | South Andes | Argentina | −50.5 | −73.04 | 180 | 340 | Granite and granodiorite | 100–410; | Aniya and Skvarca ( |
| Tiedemann | North Pacific Range | Canada | 51.32 | −124.923 | 950 | 815 | Granodiorite and orthogneiss | 36–116; | Larocque and Smith ( |
| Forni | Central European Alps | Italy | 46.41 | 10.57 | 2600 | 2200 | Granite | 10–150; | Pelfini et al. ( |
| Glaciers Noir/Blanc | Western European Alps | France | 44.92 | 6.41 | 2670 | 1890 | Granite | 14–166; | Cossart et al. ( |
| Gergeti | Greater Caucasus | Georgia | 42.66 | 44.55 | 3220 | 2770 | Andesite and dacite | 15–150; | Tielidze et al. ( |
| Lobuche | Central Himalaya | Nepal | 27.96 | 86.81 | 5100 | 5020 | Black gneiss, metapelite and quartzite | 20–300; | Richards et al. ( |
| Charquini | Central Andes | Bolivia | −16.31 | −68.11 | 5070 | 4830 | Granodiorite and granite | 9–350; | Rabatel et al. ( |
| Zongo | Central Andes | Bolivia | −16.27 | −68.13 | 4940 | 4830 | Granite | 9–351; | Rabatel ( |
| Antisana | Northern Andes | Ecuador | −0.47 | −78.15 | 4870 | 4780 | Andesite and volcanic ash | 17–150; | Collet ( |
FIGURE 2Plots of (a) soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration, (b) total N (Ntot) concentration, and (c) C/N ratio of topsoil samples versus time for the 10 soil chronosequences
Results of general mixed models that assess relationships between the SOM characteristics and soil age, mean temperature of warmest quarter (T) and precipitation of warmest quarter (P). Two types of mixed models were tested: models with random intercept (RI) and random slope (RS). The table includes results only for the mixed models with the lowest AICs values (cells in gray correspond to the variables discarded). Symbols for p values: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; † p < 0.1; NS >0.1. B values indicating the direction of the relationships are in brackets. Other models tested and detailed results are presented in Tables S1 and S3
| Model | Soil age | T | P | Age:T | Age:P | R2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOC (g C kg−1) | RS | *** (0.85) | * (0.70) | * (0.26) | 0.51 | ||
| Ntot (g N kg−1) | RI | *** (0.66) | † (0.47) | ** (0.27) | † (0.14) | 0.41 | |
| C/N | RI | *** (2.39) | * (1.88) | † (0.56) | † (−0.46) | 0.54 | |
| δ13C (‰) | RS | ** (−0.82) | 0.20 | ||||
| δ15N (‰) | RI | ** (0.71) | * (−0.82) | † (0.49) | 0.26 | ||
| POC 1 (g C kg−1) | RI | ** (0.32) | * (0.38) | * (0.37) | 0.36 | ||
| POC 2 (g C kg−1) | RI | *** (0.90) | * (0.67) | * (0.64) | * (0.43) | † (0.41) | 0.57 |
| ROC (g C kg−1) | RI | *** (0.95) | * (0.68) | * (0.60) | * (0.45) | NS | 0.62 |
| POC 1 (% of total SOC) | RI | *** (−0.48) | † (−0.31) | * (−0.35) | 0.50 | ||
| POC 2 (% of total SOC) | RI | † (−0.06) | * (0.09) | 0.17 | |||
| ROC (% of total SOC) | RI | *** (0.13) | † (0.05) | ** (−0.10) | 0.38 | ||
| T50‐POC 2 (°C) | RI | *** (−0.03) | 0.33 | ||||
| T50‐ROC (°C) | RI | *** (−0.02) | 0.08 | ||||
| CH‐POC 1 | RI | *** (−0.39) | NS | * (−0.37) | NS | 0.30 | |
| CH‐POC 2 | RI | * (0.18) | † (0.13) | * (0.29) | ** (0.36) | 0.38 | |
| FTIR C=C | RS | ** (0.04) | * (0.02) | * (0.03) | 0.36 | ||
| FTIR C=O | RS | * (−0.02) | † (0.02) | * (−0.01) | 0.29 | ||
| FTIR C‐H | RI | *** (−0.02) | ** (−0.02) | 0.29 |
FIGURE 3Plots of (a) soil δ13C versus soil organic carbon (SOC), and (b) soil δ15N evolution versus Ntot
FIGURE 4Relationships between soil age and (a) POC 1 (% of total SOC), (b) ROC (% of total SOC), (c) T50‐POC 2, (d) T50‐ROC, (e) CH‐POC 1 index, and (f) CH‐POC 2 index for eight proglacial soil chronosequences. CH, hydrocarbon effluents; POC, pyrolyzable organic carbon; SOC, soil organic carbon
FIGURE 5Overall trends in the biogeochemical signatures of soil organic matter during its accumulation in recently deglacierized (up to four centuries) topsoils